In post 2922, frog wrote:Something else that pings me about Something_Smart's entrance is that he seems focused towards trying to make town tells. By repeatedly and ostentatiously wavering about whether there are two or three scum, he is trying to give the impression that he doesn't know very much, but he somehow already understands that endgame will be between him and I, which takes some measure of acquaintance with the game.
Well, yeah, I don't know what isn't clearly stated anywhere, but it's pretty much a given that the last scum is between frog and me.
I also find this:
To be very awkward, considering that grapes' profile does not specify his gender and his current avatar displays a woman.
I always try to refer to people by the correct gender, and I can provide evidence for that if necessary. I realized after I had done it that messing up your buddy's username or gender is a common way of distancing, and I wanted to point out that I wasn't trying to do do that. (Because faked towntells as scum only carry weight if you let someone else point them out.)
This is to say little of S_S' points, most of which are not properly contextualised. Like, I appreciate that there is a lot to get through, but his point regarding, say, my conversations with inspectorscout miss what was going on in the thread at the time. You could just as easily consider them an attempt on both our parts to figure each other out.
Understandable. (I certainly am not well acquainted with the context; I'll give you that.) However, the point still stands-- doing the thing he did is something that scum do when trying to fake scumhunting.
His analysis of my Day 2 reads have to take into consideration that both of my top scumreads at that time, inspectorscout and Infinity, had claimed and been confirmed, respectively, and as such it was more than time enough for me to reconsider my reads.
The fact that he was forced to reconsider his reads does not give him an excuse to put scum as strong town with very weak reasoning; nor does it explain why he failed to reconsider his Zach read.
His comment about 'three scum' being telling is a misrep, since all I said regarding a third scum on Day 3 was this:
But even if I had assumed there were three scum, this would hardly be indicative of alignment since most Mini Theme games have three scum in them anyway, and not only that, but Seraphim assumed three scum as well. I could go on, since most of the quotes you provide are either decontextualised or interpreted highly selectively.
Okay, I concede this point; for some reason I thought he said something more definitive than that. I guess this is the problem with taking notes and then making arguments off of those notes
There is necessarily greater significance in the interactions and the game events, the most significant of which, are, to my mind:
Day 1
- Seraphim's comments about and interactions with Zachstralkita look very much like coaching
- Grapes' read on Seraphim evolves in a rather strange way, and for all his equivocation (which, by the way, he does not possess towards any of his other reads, at least not to the same extent) he never reaches out a hand or makes any pushes
I would have no valid way to respond to the second point, but all accusations of coaching should be nullified because the scum have daytalk.
Day 2
- Grapes Day 1 behaviour continues, culminating in a very non-commital motion to lend a vote if it looks like the lynch would go through
- The fact that a Seraphim lynch did not materialise, despite intense pressure from several now-confirmed town players
Again, I can't argue against most of this. But I can say that some players who appear easy to lynch become harder to lynch when under pressure, and those players are often town.
Day 3
- The fact that Zach chose to shoot LucianRoy
There's a large amount of WIFOM involved here, especially given the scum's daytalk.